Dataset Information

Metabolic and Cardiovascular Benefits of Apple and Apple-Derived Products: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quantitative evidence of the metabolic and cardiovascular effects of apples (Malus domestica) is lacking in interventional studies. This study aimed to summarize the available evidence of the beneficial effects of apples and apple-derived products (ADPs) on metabolic and cardiovascular markers.

Methods

Peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from four databases on May 3, 2021 and regularly updated until the end of May 2021. Demographic characteristics, intervention types, and evaluation parameters were extracted. A meta-analysis on the mean difference of change scores was conducted on commonly presented outcomes in the RCTs.

Results

The metabolic and cardiovascular effects of diverse regimens, including whole apple, apple extract, and apple juice, were examined in 18 eligible RCTs. Nine common evaluation outcomes were eventually introduced to the meta-analysis, including total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), triglyceride, glucose, insulin, C-reactive protein, and systolic/diastolic blood pressures. The levels of TC (-2.69 mg/dL; 95% CI: -5.43, 0.04 mg/dL) and LDL (-2.80 mg/dL; 95% CI: -5.78, 0.17 mg/dL) showed a non-significant decreasing tendency after at least a week of apple consumption. Further subgroup analysis, particularly, a comparison with placebo as a control, showed a significant reduction in TC and LDL levels. When stratified by the baseline level, subjects with high TC and LDL level were shown to have more benefits from the apple intake. Intriguingly, apple and ADPs significantly reduced HDL levels to a small extent (-1.04 mg/dL; 95% CI: -1.79, -0.29 mg/dL). The other markers were mostly unaffected by the intervention.

Conclusion

Our investigation revealed that apples could improve blood cholesterol levels.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42020215977].

SUBMITTER: Kim SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9016272 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Metabolic and Cardiovascular Benefits of Apple and Apple-Derived Products: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Kim Sun Jo SJ Anh Nguyen Hoang NH Jung Cheol Woon CW Long Nguyen Phuoc NP Park Seongoh S Cho Young Hyun YH Yoon Young Cheol YC Lee Eun Goo EG Kim Mina M Son Eui Young EY Kim Tae Ha TH Deng Yingqian Y Lim Johan J Kwon Sung Won SW

Frontiers in nutrition 20220405

<h4>Background</h4>Quantitative evidence of the metabolic and cardiovascular effects of apples (<i>Malus domestica</i>) is lacking in interventional studies. This study aimed to summarize the available evidence of the beneficial effects of apples and apple-derived products (ADPs) on metabolic and cardiovascular markers.<h4>Methods</h4>Peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from four databases on May 3, 2021 and regularly updated until the end of May 2021. Demographic c ...[more]

PMID: 35449537

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have shown promise in improving cardiovascular outcome in patients with heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Although these benefits have been confirmed by several meta-analyses, small studies have not been included into these pooled analyses.AimPublication of recent RCTs prompted us to perform this updated meta-analysis to examine the consistency of favorable cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitors in HF patients by inclusion of clinical trials with small sample size.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature in PubMed/Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all RCTs investigating the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HF. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was to compare the cardiovascular death (CVD) and hospitalization for HF (HHF) between patients who received an SGLT2 inhibitor and those who received a placebo or a non-SGLT2 inhibitor. We used a risk difference (RD) and log hazard ratio (HR) to pool the reported difference across the included RCTs.ResultsA total of 12 RCTs encompassing 59,825 patients at different stages of HF and DM were included, 32,448 patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group and 27,377 patients in the control group. A pooled analysis of RCTs, regardless of HF severity or DM status, showed a significantly reduced RD for CVD (RD =-0.01, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.00], P=0.01) and HHF (RD =-0.02, 95% CI [-0.03, -0.01], P=0.0005) in patients who received a SGLT2 inhibitor compared to those who did not. A sub-group analysis showed a significantly reduced RD for CVD (RD =-0.01, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.00], P=0.03) and HHF (RD =-0.02, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.00], P=0.01) in patients with DM who received SGLT2 inhibitors regardless of the severity of HF. Also, regardless of DM status, RD for HHF favored the use of SGLT2 inhibitor than the control medication (RD =-0.05, 95% CI [-0.06, -0.03], P<0.00001).ConclusionSGLT2 inhibitors have shown a promise in reducing CVD and HHF in patients with HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status.

Project description:BackgroundEfficacy of an intervention is commonly evaluated using P values, in addition to effect size measures such as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and numbers needed to treat. However, these measures are not always intuitive to clinicians. The fragility index (FI) is a more intuitive number that can facilitate interpretation but can only be used with binary outcomes. FI is the minimum number of patients who must be moved from the nonevent group to the event group to turn a significant result nonsignificant. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which report a positive (statistically significant) primary outcome by using the FI.Methods and resultsWe searched Medline from 2007 to 2017 to identify cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 high impact journals (The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology and European Heart Journal). Only RCTs with sample sizes >500 and a 2-by-2 factorial design or dichotomous primary outcomes were selected. FI was calculated using a defined approach. Among the cohort of 123 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, median FI was 13 (interquartile range, 5-26). In 28 trials (22.8%), FI ranged between 1 and 4. In 37 trials (30.1%), number of patients lost to follow-up was higher than the FI. Pharmaceutical interventions had higher FI compared with other interventions, FI=19 (7-52; P=0.002). Median FI varied according to subspecialty (electrophysiology=2; heart failure=11; interventional cardiology=8; P=0.020) and multiregional RCTs had higher FI=22 (12-53.25; P=0.023). FI did not differ based on risk of bias indicators, funding, or publication year.ConclusionsConsiderable variations in FI were observed among cardiovascular trials, suggesting the need for careful interpretation of results, particularly when number of patients lost to follow-up exceeds FI.

Project description:BackgroundIn patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a history of heart failure (HF), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have demonstrated cardiovascular (CV) benefits. However, the comparative efficacy of individual SGLT2is remains uncertain. This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy and safety of five SGLT2is (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, ertugliflozin, and sotagliflozin) on CV outcomes in these patients.Materials and methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to September 23, 2022, to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SGLT2is to placebo in T2D patients with HF. The main outcomes included composite CV death/heart failure hospitalization (HFH), HFH, CV death, all-cause mortality, and adverse events. Pairwise and NMA approaches were applied.ResultsOur analysis included 11 RCTs with a total of 20,438 patients with T2D and HF. All SGLT2is significantly reduced HFH compared to standard of care (SoC) alone. "Add-on" SGLT2is, except ertugliflozin, significantly reduced composite CV death/HFH relative to SoC alone. Moreover, canagliflozin had lower composite CV death/HFH compared to dapagliflozin. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), the top-ranked SGLT2is for reducing HFH were canagliflozin (95.5%), sotagliflozin (66.0%), and empagliflozin (57.2%). Head-to-head comparisons found no significant differences between individual SGLT2is in reducing CV death. "Add-on" SGLT2is reduced all-cause mortality compared with SoC alone, although only dapagliflozin was statistically significant. No SGLT2is were significantly associated with serious adverse events. A sensitivity analysis focusing on HF-specific trials found that dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and sotagliflozin significantly reduced composite CV death/HFH, consistent with the main analysis. However, no significant differences were identified from their head-to-head comparisons in the NMA. The SUCRA indicated that sotagliflozin had the highest probability of reducing composite CV death/HFH (97.6%), followed by empagliflozin (58.4%) and dapagliflozin (44.0%).ConclusionSGLT2is significantly reduce the composite CV death/HFH outcome. Among them, canagliflozin may be considered the preferred treatment for patients with diabetes and a history of heart failure, but it may also be associated with an increased risk of any adverse events compared to other SGLT2is. However, a sensitivity analysis focusing on HF-specific trials identified sotagliflozin as the most likely agent to reduce CV death/HFH, followed by empagliflozin and dapagliflozin.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022353754.

Dataset Information

Metabolic and Cardiovascular Benefits of Apple and Apple-Derived Products: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Metabolic and Cardiovascular Benefits of Apple and Apple-Derived Products: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets